F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
OCT 31 1997
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs. No. 96-4173
WILLIAM OXX, JONATHAN OXX,
MARTIN TILLY, CHRISTOPHER
BERKE, DAVID KATZ, STEVE
MULHOLLAND, JOHN M.
HENDERSON, AARON M.
BRENNAN, AND MICHAEL
KVALE,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
(D.C. No. 96-CR-077 J)
Lisa E. Jones, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Lois Schiffer, Assistant
Attorney General, Washington, D.C., Scott M. Matheson, Jr., United States
Attorney, Wayne Dance, Assistant United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah,
and M. Alice Thurston, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. with her on the
brief, and Kevin Jones, Department of the Interior, Salt Lake City, Utah, of
counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Fred M. Morelli, Jr., Aurora, Illinois, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KELLY, HOLLOWAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
The government appeals from an order dismissing a petty offense
information charging Defendants-Appellees with the delivery of persons by
parachute in a national park without a permit and not in an emergency, in
violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.17(a)(3) (1996). Our jurisdiction arises under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3731. We reverse.
Background
Defendants are BASE jumpers. “BASE” is an acronym for buildings,
antennae, spans, and earth forms; when a person has completed a jump from each
structure he can be certified as a BASE jumper. Defendants’ charges stem from
jumps during the week of April 28 to May 3, 1995, when they jumped from cliffs
on the Utah side of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. After a brief
free-fall they deployed parachutes, and all but one landed safely on the surface of
Lake Powell.
The district court dismissed the information because of what it considered
incurable ambiguity in the governing regulations. Its rationale was that
defendants’ BASE-jumping parachutes were somewhat similar to non-powered
aircraft, which are allowed on Lake Powell under 36 C.F.R. § 2.17(a)(1) and
§ 7.70(a)(6) (1996). The court ruled that these provisions conflicted with a
-2-
phrase in §2.17(a)(3) which prohibits delivery of a person by “other airborne
means” without a permit. That phrase, the court said, clearly prohibits landing a
plane on Lake Powell, in contradiction of the provisions allowing it. Under these
circumstances the district court held the regulations did not adequately notify the
average person what conduct was prohibited, and the rule of lenity required the
incurably ambiguous regulations to be construed in favor of the defendants. On
appeal the government argues that the applicable regulation suffers from no
ambiguity and is clear enough on its face to give defendants notice that their
conduct was prohibited.
Discussion
Although we generally review the dismissal of an indictment or information
for abuse of discretion, we review de novo a dismissal based on the district
court’s interpretation of the governing law. See United States v. Wood, 6 F.3d
692, 694 (10th Cir. 1993).
As with any question of interpretation, we begin with the plain language of
the regulation, which “must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer
Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980).
Section 2.17(a)(3) provides: “(a) The following are prohibited: . . . (3) Delivering
or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means,
-3-
except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or
pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.” 36 C.F.R. § 2.17(a)(3) (1996).
Defendants argue, first, that their conduct cannot be regulated under
§ 2.17(a)(3) because their parachutes provided the kind of control characteristic
of non-powered aircraft, which are permitted under § 2.17(a)(1). The district
court, although not finding that defendants’ parachutes were “aircraft,” agreed
that BASE-jumping parachutes “provide a BASE jumper with control akin to
horizontal flight that enables the jumper effectively to steer clear of the structure
leapt from and to guide the parachute to a safe landing area.” Aplt. App. at 22.
Thus defendants argue that their activity is covered by § 2.17(a)(1), which
prohibits operation of aircraft except at places designated by special regulations.
The surface of Lake Powell is such a designated landing area. See 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.70(a)(6) (1996). Accordingly the defendants assert that because their BASE-
jumping parachutes are really non-powered aircraft, and such aircraft are
permitted on Lake Powell, they have not violated the regulation. This argument,
of course, turns on whether the defendants’ BASE-jumping devices are non-
powered aircraft or are parachutes within the meaning of § 2.17(a)(3).
Second, defendants argue that the regulatory prohibition of “delivering” a
person is too ambiguous to cover their conduct.
Third, they argue that even if “delivery” unambiguously applies to their
-4-
conduct, a conflict exists between § 2.17(a)(3), which prohibits delivery of a
person by “other airborne means” without a permit, and §§ 2.17(a)(1) and
7.70(a)(6), which allow aircraft on Lake Powell. This ambiguity, they argue,
deprived them of adequate notice that their conduct was prohibited.
We turn first to the primary issue on appeal: are defendants’ BASE-
jumping parachutes included within the meaning of “parachute” in § 2.17(a)(3)?
Federal regulations define a parachute as “a device used or intended to be used to
retard the fall of a body or object through the air.” 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 (1997). The
parachutes at issue here do exactly that. Technological improvements in the
shape, maneuverability, and control of modern parachutes, including those used
here, do not make them cease to be parachutes. Defendants uniformly referred to
their BASE-jumping apparatus as a “parachute” even while protesting it was
something else, see Aplees. Brief at 4, 6, 7, 8, until oral argument, when they
began calling the parachute an airfoil. The district court noted in its
memorandum opinion that “BASE jumping does involve the use of a parachute.”
Aplt. App. at 19. We conclude that the term “parachute” in § 2.17(a)(3)
unambiguously applies to the parachutes used by defendants in BASE jumping.
Defendants assert that the word “delivering,” in the phrase “delivering . . .
a person . . . by parachute,” is too ambiguous to cover BASE jumping. 36 C.F.R.
§ 2.17(a)(3) (1996). “Delivering” is not defined in the regulations, but we believe
-5-
it is apparent that moving oneself from one area to another, as defendants did,
constitutes delivery. As applied to their conduct, then, “delivering” is
unambiguous.
Defendants also argue that a facial conflict exists between § 2.17(a)(3),
which prohibits delivery by “other airborne means” without a permit, and
§§ 2.17(a)(1) and 7.70(a)(6), which permit operation of powerless aircraft on
Lake Powell. We need not address this supposed ambiguity because the
information charged delivery by parachute, not by “other airborne means.” See
Aplt. App. at 1-2. And it charged a violation only of § 2.17(a)(3), neither
mentioning nor charging a violation of any other statute or regulation. Because
we have held that the term “parachute” in § 2.17(a)(3) unambiguously applied to
defendant’s conduct, any ambiguity in the regulation of powerless flight is
irrelevant. Nevertheless, to answer the contention that what is forbidden in
§ 2.17(a)(3) is simultaneously allowed elsewhere, we note that § 2.17(a)(3) only
prohibits airborne delivery without a permit. When read together, so that each
provision has meaning, there is no more conflict between the regulations than
there is between one rule that allows a person to drive a car on the roads and
another that requires her to have a permit to do so. The rule of lenity may not be
invoked to manufacture ambiguity. See Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333,
342 (1981) (“Where Congress has manifested its intention, we may not
-6-
manufacture ambiguity in order to defeat that intent.”) (quoting Bifulco v. United
States, 447 U.S. 381, 387 (1980).
Because there is no ambiguity in the language of the regulation, defendants
had adequate notice of the illegality of their conduct. Since “parachute” and
“delivering” clearly applied to the defendants’ activity, we conclude the
regulation “made it reasonably clear at the relevant time that the defendant’s
conduct was criminal.” United States v. Lanier, 117 S. Ct. 1219, 1225 (1997).
In the absence of ambiguity, the rule of lenity—or strict construction—may
not be applied. See Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108 (1990) (stating
that the rule of lenity should be applied only if, “[a]fter ‘seiz[ing] everything from
which aid can be derived,’” the statute is still ambiguous) (quoting United States
v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971) (quoting United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2
Cranch) 214, 230 (1805) (Marshall, C.J.))); Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 342-43; see
also United States v. Wilson, 10 F.3d 734, 736 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that the
rule of lenity “is not applicable unless ‘there is a grievous ambiguity or
uncertainty in the language’”) (quoting Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453,
463 (1991)).
As a last resort, Defendants attempted at oral argument to bring their
conduct within the regulatory exception for emergencies. They suggested that
whenever a person jumps off a cliff he is in an emergency and may deliver
-7-
himself by parachute without a permit. That argument, of course, will not fly. A
parachute by any other name is still a parachute, and delivering a person by
parachute is prohibited. As the intent of the regulation is abundantly clear,
“nothing is left to construction.” United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) at
230.
REVERSED.
-8-